header-logo header-logo

22 May 2026 / Mary Young
Issue: 8162 / Categories: Features , Profession , Artificial intelligence
printer mail-detail

When chatbots mislead

250385
© Getty images

Traditional principles of misrepresentation depend on human intention & agency. The rise of autonomous AI systems challenges both concepts in fundamental ways, writes Mary Young

  • As artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots and large language models increasingly provide information and advice, English law is being forced to consider who may be legally responsible when those outputs are false or misleading.

In January 2026 the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce launched a consultation on a legal statement it had prepared on liabilities for artificial intelligence (AI) harms, considering what rights of recourse someone harmed by AI might have, but also against whom those rights might be exercised.

This article considers misrepresentation, and how the laws of England and Wales might approach representations made by automatons such as large language models (LLMs) (for example ChatGPT) or AI chatbots.

For there to be an actionable misrepresentation, there must be a false statement made by party A (or their agent) which induces party B to enter into a contract. While there is a degree of anthropomorphism in relation

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

DSW Legal—James Mallender

DSW Legal—James Mallender

Business advisory group launches dedicated legal division with senior appointment

Gilson Gray—Peter Millican

Gilson Gray—Peter Millican

London corporate practice with partner appointment

Ward Hadaway—Alex Cooper

Ward Hadaway—Alex Cooper

Corporate team welcomes partner in Leeds

NEWS
As AI chatbots increasingly provide legal and commercial advice, English law is beginning to confront who should bear responsibility when automated systems get things wrong
Businesses are facing a ‘dramatic rise in prosecution risks’ as sweeping reforms to corporate criminal liability come into force, expanding the net of who can be held responsible for wrongdoing inside organisations
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has reignited debate over what exactly counts as the ‘conduct of litigation’ in modern legal practice
A controversial High Court financial remedies ruling has reignited debate over secrecy, non-disclosure and fairness in divorce proceedings involving hidden wealth
Britain’s deferred prosecution agreement regime is undergoing a significant shift, with prosecutors placing renewed emphasis on corporate cooperation, reform and early self-reporting
back-to-top-scroll